President Jacob Zuma is seen before the State of the Nation Address at Parliament in Cape Town. Picture: Nardus Engelbrecht/SAPAGood policy, bad policy, the debate goes on ad nauseam. So what’s at the root of the problem? Is it a case of idealism that the policy doctor just can’t cure, asks William Gumede.
Johannesburg - As President Jacob Zuma tries to reboot his policy agenda, the statement is often loudly made that South Africa has good policies, does not need new ones, and all that matters is for the country to get the implementation of policies sorted out.
However, the way South Africa constructs policies, they are often fundamentally flawed and costly, with the result that the wrong ones are adopted and are very unlikely to be properly implemented.
Often policies are so poorly thought out they have to be thrown out after a lengthy passage in Parliament. There have been occasions where policies – for example, the controversial traditional courts bill – were simply unconstitutional.
The very first problem is that policymaking is often not pragmatic, practical and level-headed enough.
Furthermore, policymaking is frequently too ideologically rigid, too idealistic and too pie-in-the sky: policies are constructed either on the basis of ideology, idealism and wishful thinking only, and not grounded in cold reality.
Granted, sometimes some measure of idealism is often good. However, too many policies appear to be adopted on idealism alone.
Often policies are opposed or promoted on the basis of ideology, rather than pragmatism and appropriateness by non-government actors, such as business, trade unions and civil society groups.
South Africa has adopted typically one-size-fits-all policies, imported from elsewhere, which in most cases have turned out to be inappropriate for the country.
There are too many policies that are adopted even if there is no capacity to oversee their implementation.
The basic outcomes education policy is a case in point. It was imported to the country and is one of the reasons why South Africa’s public schools system is in a crisis.
Immediately, after coming into power in 1994, the new government decided to lift tariff barriers higher than was required by the World Trade Organisation, in the process decimating parts of our local manufacturing industries.
This was in stark contrast to countries such as Australia, which adopted a more phased approach to protect their local industry.
When new policies are cobbled together, there rarely seems to be an exercise which costs the different potential outcomes.
For instance, what would it cost to keep the same policy versus adopting a new policy.
Furthermore, an analysis of the unintended consequences of adopting a new policy – costs, potential opposition to the policy, and so on – is also often not made.
However, policies are often changed midstream, without a thorough analysis of why they have failed, perpetuating a cycle of misfiring policies.
A case in point is the new immigration legislation, which was gazetted last year.
Now deferred, it was intended to tighten security at borders of entry, but was about to hit the country’s tourism industry which employs 600 000 South Africans and contributes R90 billion to GDP.
Pre-1994 policies have often been rejected just because they were associated with the apartheid-era, but without looking at their potential use in the democratic era.
It also appears that some policies are being decided on, not because there is a need for such policies, but because it could provide a government tender.
Some policies have been “captured” by interests groups, and although bad for the economy, are not being changed because powerful interests oppose this.
Black economic empowerment in its current form has empowered only a few of the well-connected “political” capitalists.
Although there is widespread agreement on this, it appears unlikely that the BEE policy will be changed because powerful political and business interests groups are benefiting from it and will oppose or at least water-down any change to the policy.
Policies are often made at centralised level without consulting the recipients.
And often such policies are not appropriate.
Many government policymakers appear not to understand that they may have the power to unilaterally cobble together policy which they think would be good for the country, but in order to implement such policies successfully they need to consult different constituencies and get their support.
Failure to achieve this will result in the policy not being implemented successfully.
Often policymakers in the government have never worked in or don’t understand the areas in which they formulate policies, resulting in them coming up with policies that do more harm than good.
The government and political policymakers are often so far apart and distrust each other so much that so-called co-operative policymaking, which will benefit the widest interests of South Africa, are frequently not achieved.
Often policies have been rejected by the ANC’s own tripartite alliance partners, Cosatu and the SA Communist Party, which means that whatever good intentions the government may have, such opposed policies are never going to be implemented.
Policies are often not communicated properly within the government departments that are supposed to deliver the policies.
Since 1994 there has been a lack of co-ordination and integration of policies across and between different department and spheres of government, which different presidencies appear to be unable to rectify.
Some of the policies considered need an inter-governmental department delivery chain.
However, many government departments and ministries operate in silos, with little policy communication or co-operation.
Policies are often not communicated to the public, and when they are, they are done so in a confused fashion, often through diktat.
But South Africa comes up with so many policies, and policies are changed so many times, that both the public and the government’s roleplayers are by now policy-tired, and understandably try to shrug them off, given that the policy may also change soon.
Finally, the public service, which is supposed to implement the policies, has itself been ineffective, which means no matter how good policies may be, they are unlikely to be implemented properly.
* Gumede is chairman of the Democracy Works Foundation and author of Restless Nation: Making Sense of Troubled Times.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Sunday Independent
Related Stories